We have some advantages, like our lead in technology, but few of them are natural advantages. So I actually think we're the long term losers of the second cold war. Especially if we try to ignore it as it starts.
We have some advantages, like our lead in technology, but few of them are natural advantages. So I actually think we're the long term losers of the second cold war. Especially if we try to ignore it as it starts.
You talk about a cold war as in specifically U.S. vs China. If it is just U.S. vs. China (meaning the U.S. isolates itself further from its allies in the future), then the U.S. will lose. China has a quarter of the world's population, heavily invests in science and technology, and has a population that is intensely nationalistic and works its ass off. The need for self-censorship and the cultural resistance to individualism means that the Chinese will always struggle in the arts, but that's about it.
What’s going to happen with the demographics in China?
China and Russia may not get along with each other or the West, but both have expended extensive effort building influence against the West and each other, and have their own extensive network of relationships to leverage.
The West’s advantage is productivity.
> China has a quarter of the world's population
1.4/7.8 < 18%
What's the practicality of that? It's not like the rest of the US is dealing less with China because it's less allied with them in the ways that really matter like business or trade.
Don't forget Western business interests, which are politically powerful and will often succeed at blocking any action that interferes with their short-term profits. Their loyalty is to their shareholders, and they'll sell everyone else out for them. I actually see this as the biggest problem preventing the West from taking effective action.
The PRC doesn't have this problem, because its businesses are clearly subordinate to its political apparatus (e.g. they've been making examples out of very large and successful companies lately).
True, and I don't know how much longer this can last. As an example, the rise of TikTok has certainly taken me by surprise. I've always seen world-class social media apps as a Silicon-Valley thing, something that only the US managed to produce. But now, not so much.
Taiwan recently overtook Intel in semiconductor manufacturing, another area where we used to be peerless. How long before China matches is on that front as well?
Chinese industrial policy is kicking our ass. The Fortune 500 executives that kiss Xi’s ass know this (https://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/...). That’s why they’re so obsequious.
> True, and I don't know how much longer this can last.
Yeah, especially since many, many Americans seem to stupidly reassure themselves by wishfully thinking it's some kind of natural advantage they have (e.g. the Chinese only copy, etc.).
IMHO, it's not too wrong to assume the PRC essentially has technical parity now, which should be pretty concerning to Americans because they also stupidly disposed of many of their other capabilities for short term business reasons.
Twitter/Vine did not want to pay creators. I don't know the history on why YouTube/Twitch/TikTok figured it out and why Snap/Twitter/FB drag their feet with it. I remember there was a turning point where many large creators on Vine decided to move to Instagram/YouTube because it was easier to monetize.
Come on, that's sorta like saying "Google's only interesting technology is its search algorithm" (I'm being a little loose here, but going back 20 years I'd say that's true). When it's the defining feature of your product, it's the only thing that matters and why it's the leader. Unless somebody can mimic TikTok's success, dismissing them seems arrogant.
> which I doubt is that different or innovative compared to Netflix or Youtube
Speaking from personal experience, Youtube has a horrible recommendation system, and Netflix is somewhere between okay and good.
China's drive to reduce dependence on imports of high-tech goods is a reaction to the US' attempts over the last few years to use this dependence against China.
The US has used its central position in the world's financial system to force other countries to stop doing business with certain Chinese companies, such as Huawei. This can be a death sentence for these companies. Huawei can't buy 7nm chips from anyone - including Chinese companies - because those companies are afraid of US sanctions.
China has recognized that it is vulnerable to this type of economic aggression, and is taking measures to insulate itself. I expect to see China, Russia and other countries targeted by sanctions build up financial systems that bypass the US dollar, and for China to try to reduce dependence on high-tech imports.
This all goes back to the aggressive foreign policy that Trump initiated, and which Biden appears to be continuing.
Biden is a bust and next time around we either get Trump or Kamala...I don't think any sane person would feel confident in either of them. The elite in this country caused this mess with China and they will end up finishing us off thanks to their election games.
Maybe leadership at the top doesn't matter. There is the rest of the government, a huge organization of mostly unelected life term bureaucrats many of whom have probably seen the last cold war. They may end up saving us or China stumbles massively and their disadvantages(aging population, badly built infrastructure) bite them enough for us to survive.
I think we don't even need the best leadership...just someone who is kinda courageous and somewhat competent. That plus all the good things the US has going for it might be enough to solve this crisis.
We have had instances in the past of a black swan coming out of nowhere to save the day. Maybe this will happen again in 2024. As far as I can tell the Democrats don't have to choose Kamala although how often has the VP not gotten serious consideration in recent times? Especially when she is the establishment favorite?
And while it would be nice to see Trump get knocked out in the primary, all signs point to him being too far ahead of any other republican to be knocked out.
Just a sad situation all around that we have to hope for a pleasant surprise.
Exactly 100% of the time that it was the election where the party had a first-term incumbent, back to Humphrey in 1965, and that...isn’t something the DNC probably wants to repeat. Harris is only a potential candidate in 2024 if Biden doesn't run for reelection, and even then isn’t a shoo-in for the nomination unless Biden resigns before the primaries and she runs as the incumbent President. Which is such an extreme scenario that its not worth considering.
Heck, even for outgoing Presidents, the sitting Vice President hasn't been a contender in the subsequent Presidential nomination contest since Gore on 2000 (neither Biden not Cheney were contenders), and the only VP to actually be elected (rather than succeeding on death or resignation) to the Presidency in...quite a long time...was George Bush in 1988.
The media bubble around Harris is driving Democrats straight to the cliff. Minorities, who make up 40% of the party and are over represented in critical swing states, don’t like her. She was polling at mid-single digits among Black voters in the south (behind Biden, Sanders, and Warren) before she pulled out: https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/04/kamala-harris-black.... She was polling around the same among Latinos in her home state of California.
Apart from that, she’s a terrible retail politician. When I went to see the candidates speak in Iowa back in 2019, Elizabeth Warren stood around giving everyone hugs and taking selfies after the speeches were over. Harris, meanwhile, quickly retreated to her campaign bus to avoid having to shake hands and talk to people.
You mean the bubble of persistently hostile coverage, or something that doesn't actually exist?
This sort of coverage is a liability for Democrats because it insulates them from information. A glaring example of this is Elizabeth Warren. It should have been news from the beginning that she had failed to establish personal networks with Black or Latino voters during her tenure as Senator. Her Super Tuesday supporters were 80% white, for an electorate that was only 50% white. When Democrats win elections by turning out Latinos in the southwest and Black people in the south, Warren won just 5-6% of those voters on Super Tuesday, behind Michael Bloomberg.
Elizabeth Warren was a dead-on-arrival candidate because minorities didn’t like her and they’re 40% of the Democratic Party. That should have been a huge story. Instead, the media fawned over her for months because they personally loved Warren. Super Tuesday this blindsided everyone, even though it should have been predictable given what we knew about Warren from the beginning.
If Biden doesn’t run in 2024, expect to see similar fawning coverage of Harris, focused on her “historic” identity and papering over her flaws as a politician. That creates a very real risk that Democrats nominate someone who their own base doesn’t like very much.
We need someone who understands capitalism and favors markets but also knows when to control the markets and not allow them to sell us under the table. Someone who understands their responsibility is the American economy and its people and not how well companies do in China or Indonesia or not. Yes, sure, we need foreign markets and they need us, but we should not cave in and let them limit what we can do in their country but then allow them to do as they will here. It has to have some reciprocity. We also need to take into account labor laws and environmental impact when assessing tariffs.
Edit: At this point I believe that cutting the cords to China would at least incur a 50% drop in purchasing power of the average consumer in the medium term.